New firearms application forms by 1st December

[David BASC]

Following consultation with the UK's largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) and an online vote by BASC members, a new form designed to simplify the firearms application process has been published by the Home Office.

Under the current system, renewing coterminous certificates means completing four separate forms, with the same details repeated time and time again, an issue which has frustrated BASC members for many years. The new procedure, made available from December 1st 2013, will include only one form for grants and renewals. There will be a small separate form for anyone wanting to vary their firearm certificate

Other benefits to be introduced include the removal of the requirement for a professionally-qualified countersignatory. This means applicants will no longer need to approach a person such as an MP or Doctor to sign their shotgun certificate but will be able to use a suitable person who has known them for over two years, and who is not a family member, Registered Firearms Dealer or police employee.

Ammunition requirements have also been simplified; under the new system it will no longer be mandatory to declare how much ammunition can be bought, only how much can be possessed.

For co-terminous applications for shotgun and firearm certificates there is now a requirement for only four photographs to accompany the joint application rather than eight.

Along with the new single form there will be an “equality information” page. This is not a compulsory form and need only be completed if the applicant wishes to.

BASC’s senior firearms officer Mike Eveleigh said: “BASC has worked with the police and Home Office for over eight years in an attempt to simplify and refine the forms and while they are not perfect in our eyes, they are a great improvement over the previous forms. They are a genuine attempt to simplify the process and we would like to thank all the BASC members who voted and helped with the development.”

Once new forms are available for online download, BASC will update its forms and fees page - http://www.basc.org.uk/en/department...s-and-fees.cfm

The Firearms (Amendment) Rules 2013 can be viewed in full here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../contents/made

 

A big step in the right direction!

 

David

[steve_b_wales]

A good result. I wish though, that when you part ex change a rifle with an RFD, for one of the same caliber, you did'nt have to send off your certificate first, to have one taken off and another one added (one for one variation) It's annoying.

[casts_by_fly]

baby steps steve...

 

When I first moved here 6 years ago I was always amazed at that extra work for coterminus applications. I felt like I was filling out immigration forms again. Even through I'll probably never have to go through the new forms, I'm glad to see things are being made simpler for everyone.

 

thanks

rick

[Scully]

Well done our shooting organisations.A step in the right direction,though I don't agree with 'baby steps';we've had over 40 years to get the application/licensing process sorted.Long way to go yet.

What does an 'equality information' page consist of ?

[pegasus bridge]

Well done our shooting organisations.A step in the right direction,though I don't agree with 'baby steps';we've had over 40 years to get the application/licensing process sorted.Long way to go yet.

What does an 'equality information' page consist of ?

Its the opportunity to disclose if you are a disabled, trans-gender aborigini!

[tjm160]

Well done BASC and thanks for the update David. Although a SGC holder since my early teens, I'm new to the realm of FAC. Can you share any of the reasoning behind why ammunition holding limits remain in place, particularly with no longer being mandatory to declare how much ammunition can be purchased?

[CharlieT]

Well done BASC and thanks for the update David. Although a SGC holder since my early teens, I'm new to the realm of FAC. Can you share any of the reasoning behind why ammunition holding limits remain in place, particularly with no longer being mandatory to declare how much ammunition can be purchased?

 

For the very same reason that firearms themselves were controlled in the first place....................Public or should I say Government safety.

 

To stop the proletariat amassing firearms and ammunition thus enabling them to overthrow government.

[tjm160]

Thanks Charlie but surely that's just ridiculous, all restricting us to e.g. 600 rds of .17 HMR or .22 instead of e.g. 1,200 just means more frequent trips to the local RFD and a higher price?

[Scully]

Common sense and logic play no roles in British firearms legislation.

[CharlieT]

As the man above says.

 

Welcome to the world of firearms licensing.

[phaedra1106]

I've downloaded the gif images and converted them to a couple of standard PDF files.

New FAC Application is here, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103 ... 20Form.pdf

New FAC Variation is here, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/103 ... iation.pdf

 

Editable versions are available here,

 

FAC Form:
http://db.tt/3Gklfmwo

Variation Form
http://db.tt/7c0yvKPW

Edited August 13, 2013 by phaedra1106

[Boristhedog]

A good result. I wish though, that when you part ex change a rifle with an RFD, for one of the same caliber, you did'nt have to send off your certificate first, to have one taken off and another one added (one for one variation) It's annoying.

 

Steve, agreed!

 

The current process makes no sense at all.

 

The FAC allows me to own a specific calibre rifle as I’ve shown sufficient reason to have one.

I buy one.

I subsequently want to part exchange that rifle for a different rifle of the same calibre.

So I sell my rifle to the RFD.

I can still own a rifle as I’ve already got permission to and the slot is now vacant.

I should be able to buy a rifle of the same calibre from the RFD.

 

Why do I need a one for one variation?

 

Cannot BASC challenge this nonsense?

Edited August 14, 2013 by Boristhedog

[telf]

Thanks Charlie but surely that's just ridiculous, all restricting us to e.g. 600 rds of .17 HMR or .22 instead of e.g. 1,200 just means more frequent trips to the local RFD and a higher price?

 

you have just hit the nail on the head "and a higher price",anything to screw more money out of you

[David BASC]

I agree, 1 for 1 variation makes sense, simply send in notification of the new guns details like you would the section 2 so they can update their records.

 

We have the new forms protocol, we have the new HO guidance being released, we have ACPO on side to help remove stupid conditions, we have on line renewals starting and so on, and we are taking individual authorities to task (Durham is the current prime example).

 

We have come a long way and delivered a lot for shooting, but yes there is more to do!

 

David

[Scully]

I agree with the 1 for 1 variation suggestions.This has been a bug-bear of mine for years.It could be so uncomplicated but in its present form is stupidly complicated and serves no purpose to either the applicant nor public safety.

Another is specification of exact calibre.For example if an applicant has been granted centre-fire for a particular quarry then surely all cf calibres suitable up to and including said quarry should be available to the applicant.It serves no purpose that I can see in its present form.The same could be said of rf.Transactions to/from a RFD and informing the relevant licensing authority would remain unaltered as would any perceived threat to public safety.

[jimmyvonk]

Just an idea regards 1 for 1 variation and caliber specifics - surely set ranges would be a better idea.

IE,

You would need a variation to exchange a 5.56 for a 7.92, but not to exchange a 7.62 for a 7.92.

Sort of caliber "Banding" with a set list - your cert would say

8mm band, which includes say .303, 7.62, 7.92 etc.

6mm band, 5.56, .22 ctr fire, etc

[CharlieT]

I agree, 1 for 1 variation makes sense, simply send in notification of the new guns details like you would the section 2 so they can update their records.

 

We have come a long way and delivered a lot for shooting, but yes there is more to do!

 

David

 

Did I not read in the ACPO FELWG minutes that they were in favor of this and working towards implementing it.

 

Just an idea regards 1 for 1 variation and caliber specifics - surely set ranges would be a better idea.

IE,

You would need a variation to exchange a 5.56 for a 7.92, but not to exchange a 7.62 for a 7.92.

Sort of caliber "Banding" with a set list - your cert would say

8mm band, which includes say .303, 7.62, 7.92 etc.

6mm band, 5.56, .22 ctr fire, etc

 

ACPO FELWG are on record as being totally against a "banding" system. I quote.............

 

11. BANDING SYSTEM

11.1 A general discussion took place regarding banding however, this was considered to be a

relaxing of the current regulations surrounding the possession of Section 1 firearms and

members were not in favour of the system

Action 2 – Banding System

Action closed - The Practitioners’ Group has been updated on the unfavourable views of

FELWG in relation to a banding system and essentially this would require a change

in primary legislation.

[phaedra1106]

(Durham is the current prime example). David

Can you give any details?, I had a 2 1/2 month wait to get my FAC back for a simple change of address over slug conditions for a sec.1 shotgun, the conditions were already on when it went in and it came back exactly the same.

 

Another problem with having to specify the exact calibre, chambering and action for a rifle, I wanted a 300 Blackout (which they say doesn't exist) but had to specify which action even though I didn't know which would be available, turned out to be the wrong one and I ended up with another 2 week wait while they did full background checks for a simple change of action on a calibre they'd already approved, then argued that it couldn't be put on as a single shot break action (which is exactly what it is).

 

Also still can't get my 22LR allowance increased from 600 hold yet I can happily have 1500 30 cal!.

Edited August 14, 2013 by phaedra1106

[David BASC]

Here is the info on BASC / Durham police....http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/pressreleases.cfm/prid/FE6E38D5-7076-4B28-A804E49614C09CAE

[phaedra1106]

Thanks David, they were doing that last year.

 

There was a copy of the medical request form in with the FAC/SGC application forms in the reception area while I was sitting waiting to get an incorrect FAC corrected (again), strangely enough Mike Eveleigh and another BASC official were also there waiting to see the Assistant Chief Constable!.

[JonathanL]

 

Steve, agreed!

 

The current process makes no sense at all.

 

The FAC allows me to own a specific calibre rifle as I’ve shown sufficient reason to have one.

I buy one.

I subsequently want to part exchange that rifle for a different rifle of the same calibre.

So I sell my rifle to the RFD.

I can still own a rifle as I’ve already got permission to and the slot is now vacant.

I should be able to buy a rifle of the same calibre from the RFD.

 

Why do I need a one for one variation?

 

Cannot BASC challenge this nonsense?

 

That isn't how the current process works. The 'slot' does not become vacant when you dispose of a firearm. The 'slot' is an authority to acquire and once you have acquired it then the authority to acquire ceases to exist as it has been used. If you want to replace the rifle you have to apply for a new authority to acquire.

 

J.